| I think that what yummyfajita is trying to get at is the idea that as societies the US, UK etc spend up to their limits rather than saving. The problem is that this doesn't really generalise into individuals being able to opt out of the spending. If everyone refused to pay 50% of their income on rent then rents would fall (unlike, say, food production, the homes won't just cease to exist). But an individual can't affect that change. If they want to work in a city, they rent in that city. There are a few oddball solutions that can work in unique cases. Living with parents works if they are willing and your hometown has a decent employment market. Living in a car might work in some places. House sharing might work if you can find reasonable housemates and you are well paid (if you have no hope of ever saving much, then it's pointless to inflict a crap life upon yourself for a future that will never come). The idea that people spend loads on crap just doesn't add up to me though. When rent, energy, taxes and minimum food (e.g. 20pw rice and beans diet) add up to most of your income, does it really matter what you do with the small amount left over? edit: Oh; and the capital advantage on moving doesn't exist. Most people have zero net worth. |